Binder Bombshell: massive pro-Rossi fraud uncovered in Bothell!

A big thanks to fellow blogger Stefan, over at (un)Sound Politics for his help in uncovering massive, pro-Rossi vote fraud! According to Stefan’s analysis of the polling book accountability worksheet, there were 30 more ballots than voters at Bothell Regional Library, Precinct 3271.

A quick glance at the King County election results showed Dino Rossi leading Christine Gregoire by a 226 to 198 margin in Precinct 3271. Using the “proportional analysis” methodology Rossi’s attorneys are proposing in his election contest, and applying it to the 30 “mystery ballots,” this clear example of organized fraud by Rossi supporters cut Gregoires lead by two votes — over 1.5% of her final margin — in this single precinct alone. Extrapolate this out to all 2616 precincts, and Gregoire would have won the election by a 5,361 vote landslide!

None of this should come as a surprise, since as we all know… Republicans are more likely to cheat than Democrats.

Share:

Related

Comments

He righties… satisfied? I’m going back out into the garden, and then off to a St. Patty’s Day party. I’ll get back to some real analysis on this issue sometime tomorrow. In the meanwhile, some of you need to get a life.

Don’t you mean it INCREASES Gregoire’s lead Since you have to deduct the these improper provisional votes from each candidate. I calculated a 1.98 vote deduction from Rossi, or a corresponding increase to Gregoire.

Goldy, you forgot to factor in the 2.5 multiplier effect for the 31 Rossi counties, where the GOP cheating was proportionally greater, according to the extrapolation theory. It appears Gregoire won by somwhere around 12,500 votes.

If you look at the ballot reconciliation sheet that Stefan posted on uSP (I will use your acronym), 138 voters signed the poll book, but 154 ballots were counted in the AccuVote machine. 25 provisional (ADD-ONS) ballots were issued, so 9 provisionals should have been counted in the regular envelopes.

If you look at the King County election tallies, these same figures should be reflect. The manual recount tally on-line is not broken down by POLLING, ABSENTEE, and ADD-ONS, but the machine recount is.

Then, look at the total 154 ballots counted as POLL. Rossi 72 or 46.75%. Gregoire 77 or 50.00%. Bennett and Blank 5 or 3.25%.

That is quite a big discrepancy between the percentages cast in ABSENTEE ballots and POLL ballots. How do we explain this?

Let’s take the 138 legitimate POLL voters who signed the poll books. If their preferences were distributed the same way as the ABSENTEE voters in that precinct, then we would have: Rossi 74.51 or 53.99%. Gregoire 58.99 or 42.75%. Bennett and Blank 4.50 or 3.26%.

In reality, we have 72 Rossi votes out of 154 (138 + 16), instead of the expected 74.51 Rossi votes out of 138. And we have 77 Gregoire votes out of 154 (138 + 16), instead of the expected 58.99 Gregoire votes out of 138.

So the simple statistical analysis of compared the number of votes expected out of legimate POLL voters, using the same percentage of votes cast by ABSENTEE voters, and comparing this with actual POLL votes (which include stuffed provisionals), proves the case.

The overwhelming likelihood is that all 16 of stuffed provisional ballots in Precinct BOT 01-3271 were cast for Christine Gregoire.

Since provisional ballot stuffers presumably voted in most or all of the races, and not just for Governor, similar results should be obtained by comparing other partisan races in Precinct BOT 01-3271.

I would be willing to bet that we can find similar results in most, if not all, of the other precincts where there were a significant number of stuffed provisional ballots.

By the way, while all of the 16 stuffed provisional ballots in Precinct BOT 01-3271 appear to have been cast for Democrats (or at least Gregoire), the 9 legitimate envelope provisional voters seem to have roughly mirrored the ABSENTEE voters — five for Rossi, three for Gregoire, and one for Bennett.

Here are the figures from the machine recount canvass as to how all of the POLLING, ABSENTEE and ADD-ON ballots in Precinct BOT 01-3271 voted for Governor:

Richard– Whenever you do a gotcha on Goldy (which is pretty much every time!) he calls his analysis a joke. The only analysis Goldy knows anything about is psycho-analysis which Goldy has obviously been a “client” of for most of his miserable existence.

Goldy is one of these clowns who takes a little information and tries to morph it into something to prove his pre-determined point. Goldy is L-A-Z-Y and S—T—U—P—I—D! I had to spell STUPID very, very slowly for Goldy!!

“That is quite a big discrepancy between the percentages cast in ABSENTEE ballots and POLL ballots. How do we explain this?”

Actually, Richard Pope, the explanation you seek is about as simple as taking a course in Election Results 1.1! Historically and traditionally, it is viewed as axiomatic that Republican candidates generally have a significant statistical edge over Democratic candidates in absentee votes, while Democratic candidates typically do proportionally better than Republican candidates in polling-place voting.

So the results from that precinct appear to be precisely in proportion to what one would expect from analyzing absentee votes vs. polling place votes.

I bet even if you talk to some of your right wing friends they will acknowledge that factor of Republicans historically benefitting from absentee voting.

“Historically and traditionally, it is viewed as axiomatic that Republican candidates generally have a significant statistical edge over Democratic candidates in absentee votes,”

Only when absentee ballots are restricted use, meaning you can cast one if on out of state business or vacationing. Washington has liberalized the use of the absentee, allowing those who simply prefer to vote absentee. History cannot be used in such cases, since you do not have a comparable set of data.

I recognize that you intended your analysis as a joke. However, my analysis was intended to be serious. I must give you credit for inspiring my analysis. Maybe Governor Rossi will give you credit in December?

Nelson @ 11

If you look at King County as a whole, then Democrats do get a percent or two more than Republicans in POLL votes versus ABSENTEE. However, if you compared the percentages in individual precincts, you probably wouldn’t have that kind of difference.

A lot higher percentage of the voters in heavily Democrat Seattle vote at the polls, than is the case in the suburbs. This results in a higher than average percentage of POLL voters countywide being from Seattle, and a higher than average percentage of ABSENTEE voters being from the suburbs.

There are reasons for this which have absolutely nothing to do with the political preferences of the individual voter. Seattle is a dense urban area, and it is very easy to walk or drive a short distance to the polls. People in the suburbs have to travel further to the polls and therefore have a higher preference to vote by mail. Same reasoning applies to commuting issues, which can make it much more difficult for a suburban voter to find time to vote at the polls on election day, than for a Seattle voter.

In several counties in the recent election, such as Grays Harbor and Snohomish, Republican candidates actually did several percentage points better (looking at overall countywide numbers) in the POLL votes than they did in the ABSENTEE votes.

The more relevant numbers, of course, would be 138 ballots and 276 ballots. If you take this same analytic method and use it on numerous other precincts with lots of stuffed provisional ballots, and if you get the same results consistently, then my proposition would be validated at a much higher level of probability.

I will agree that the manual recount numbers would be a better baseline to start from than the machine recount numbers. However, KC Elections does not have the manual recount breakdown by type of ballot cast posted on-line. On the other hand, that breakdown is available in paper or electronic form.

Although some voters incorrectly put their provisional ballots into the counting machines instead of provisional ballot envelopes, this alone constitutes neither “stuffing” nor illegal voting. If those voters were entitled to vote — and the overwhelming majority of them were — those are legal votes.

Voters are supposed to sign the pollbook before they receive a ballot. That applies to provisional voters as well. Provisional voters then get a pair of envelopes to put the completed ballot in, and they sign the outer envelope. One problem is that the provisional voters sometimes put the ballot directly into the Accuvote machine.

In Bothell precinct 3271, the theory seems to be that 16 voters did just that. The reconciliation sheet shows 25 PBs issued, but only 9 envelopes returned. Some posters seem to think that proves the other 16 were cast by illegal voters. I’m wondering how many provisional voters signed the pollbook. If there are 25 signatures, wouldn’t that make fraud less likely — especially if most of those signatures proved to be from legally registered voters?

I’m not saying that’s the case — I just think a look at the PB signatures in the pollbook would be useful. I wonder if Stefan checked it out…

I doubt that any arithmetic will move Judge Bridges. The stakes are high that he will not overturn, same goes for a higher court. Americans as a whole are not that upset, it is rare to hear anyone talking about the election, in fact I have heard nothing from the general sector of the public whom I see daily in quanity. The public are into other things. Just like when Bush won and the losing % was very unhappy, wasn’t by a 129 margin either, life went on. I will go on as it is in small towns or big cities all over Washington State. They are welcoming Spring, back to their garden and planning summer entertainment, vacations ect, with family outdoors after the cold of winter. Rossi being in or out of the mansion is not top of their list. People learn to accept what they can not change and as the AA slogan goes…have the wisdom to know the differance. Debating and blogging politics is another form of today’s entertainment. Can we change the election resukts? I do not think so.

cynical@24. You must have got up too late to catch the morning news. Someone said an illegal voter claimed to have seen Rossi enter the courthouse wearing pajama bottoms, fuzzy slippers and looking gaunt. Someone was holding a black umbrella over his head. Maybe the trial is over.

LA, California Democrats “learn” from their comrades in King County, WASH. Read on!!! [“Remember, said a famous communists, “It’s who counts the votes!”.]…………………………………….. Without informing mayoral challengers, Los Angeles City Clerk Frank Martinez ordered election workers Tuesday night to use blue highlighter pens to re-ink thousands of voters’ ballots that had “bubbles” partially or faintly filled in, the Daily News learned Friday…. “I’ve never heard of anything like this before,” said Bob Stern, president of the Center for Governmental Studies. “It’s unprecedented. You don’t tamper with the ballots.

“You want to have the ballots in the same condition when they were deposited into the ballot box and you never want to touch ballots in terms of putting a mark on them. It’s shocking.”

348 provisional ballot voters put the ballot directly into the AccuVote machine, but returned the completed provisional ballot envelope to the poll workers. Somewhere around 90 to 100 of these people were registered voters or weren’t otherwise entitled to vote. 40 of these people actually voted twice — i.e. they were credited with casting either a poll vote or an absentee vote, in addition to their empty provisional ballot envelope.

In addition to these 348 “honest” provisional ballot stuffers, there are an unknown number of “dishonest” provisional ballot stuffers who cannot be identified. These people stuffed their completed ballot into the AccuVote machine, and failed to return the provisional ballot envelope. If you are a smart ballot stuffer, you will do this to eliminate any evidence that will point to you.

There could be anywhere from a few hundred to over a thousand of these unidentifiable provisional ballot stuffers. Somehow, I think that all of the 16 provisional ballot stuffers in BOT 01-1723 fall into this category.

To the extent that provisional ballot stuffing is “honest”, voters would return the empty completed provisional envelope to the poll worker. “Honest” stuffing should be fairly evenly distributed among the various precincts.

But if provisional ballot stuffing is “dishonest”, then the empty completed provisional envelope is not returned, so that no paper trial is left to identify the fraudulent voter. In addition, “dishonest” stuffing is likely to be concentrated in a small number of precincts (probably busy ones, where confusion is otherwise rampant), instead of being more evenly spread around the county.

KC Elections says that a bit over 31,000 provisional ballots were issued. There are 348 identified “honest” stuffers, which is an “honest” stuffing rate of just over 1%. As for “dishonest” stuffers, 310 would be 1% and 1240 would be 4% rate of “dishonest” stuffing. So the total stuffing rate for provisional ballots would range anywhere from just over 1% (assuming no “dishonest” stuffing at all) to as much as 5% or more (assuming at least 1240 “dishonest” stuffers).

Obviously, something is really wrong when you have a precinct like BOT 01-3271, where 16 out of 25 provisional ballots that are issued end up getting stuffed — this is a stuffing rate of 64%. When the stuffing rate countywide is somewhere between 1% and 5%, having a 64% stuffing rate in a single precinct strongly suggests an organized effort at dishonesty.

All of this supports the proposition that the Democrats could have driven vanloads of fraudulent voters around to multiple precincts, especially the busy ones, and certainly including a number which were Republican leaning, in order to stuff provisional ballots for their candidates.

Chee You’ve had too many hits on the bong, obviously. Dan Evans sat the example. Someone with class would have followed that example. But that was not to be. And so we engage in these pointless discussions. Hack a little more Chee Buddy! Your brain’s fried and too far gone to know the difference.

I must confess, this whole election exchange has become rather tiresome. Is there anything you can say about Gregriore/Rossi you could not say about Bush/Gore (in Florida at least). In that case the Demo’s recognized that it was better to walk away than destroy the process. The Rep’s seem to disagree. Puase for a moment and consider the consequences. We do have imperfect processes. And the result of a single election is less important than the civilization we live in. Is hateful conflict our goal unless we win? And even if this election is as flawed as it’s most vocal critics assert, consider if a future election really is conducted perfectly (an unlikely proposition) and the result is a margin of one, could the winner govern?

I thought we used to believe that win or lose, our strenght was our abilty to work together afterwards. Maybe I was wrong.

YOU GOT THE PRECINCT NUMBER WRONG!!!! THE 30 provisional votes were in Bothel 1-0254 IN WHICH THE ABSENTEES WENT FOR GREGOIRE BY 174 TO 97. SO GREGOIRE SHOULD HAVE A MUCH HIGHER INCREASE IN HER MARGIN OF VICTORY.

BUT GOLDY’S RIGHT THIS ANALYSIS IS WAY TOO IFFY TO DECIDE AN ELECTION.

K @34 – This election was nothing like Gorefest 2000. It started with hateful accusations that the Republicans conspired to deny people of color the right to vote. It went downhill from there. In this election, the final “certified” margin of victory was 129 votes. King County has openly admitted to nearly 400 provisional ballots that were illegally counted. In Pierce County alone, 73 felons were found to have voted in the election and the King County total is much higher. Just face facts – King County lost control of the process, if it ever had it in the first place. Go over to Sound Politics and look at pictures from the “Big Big Binder”. Traceability? It’s pathetic. I am absolutely ecstatic Rossi has the courage and conviction to carry this challenge forward because if nothing else, it will spur some long overdue housecleaning of an obviously broken election system.

Coordinated at the highest levels of the liberal elite and MSM. The work was planned. The plan was worked!

Somehow! Somehow!

The mystery deepens. The vans that never carried Republican voters to their polling places on election day or the phones that never rang in Republican households reminding Republicans to send in their absentee ballot – all to the tune of 80 thousand Republicans in King County alone.

The execution of the conspiracy and the unfathomable depths of the crime defies comprehension.

I stand by my comments. Do you really believe the Washigton election is closer that the Florida election? Don’t the areguements that it’s too close to call apply for both? Do you believe the retired Jewish folks voted for Buchanon? THe stakes in the short term are certainly greater (Bush v. Gregiore) The long tern stakes are agruable.

Isn’t there a value on moving on and cleaning it up for the next time?

THe King County recounts were witnessed by both parties. Were there flaws, undeniably. Did anyone raise factual issues during it? No. Is there EVIDENCE (not wild ass spectulation) of fraud, I have not seen it. And we do have a Republiucan attorney general, to say nothing of a Republican federal government. Cut the crap, it’s tiresome.

No K – You are most tiresome and pedantic when you cloak your obvious partisanship in the old refrain – “Can’t we all just get along?”. The Democrats are the good guys. The Republicans want to destroy the system. Just move on. There’s nothing to see here. Just trust us.

Totally pathetic.

There is far more value in cleaning up the system of freshly dead illegal immigrant out of state double-voting felons. Both parties will benefit when an electorate can actually trust that an election has half a chance of being fairly conducted.

Here’s my point: if there are improper votes (provisional or felons) you have to deduct them from each candidate, because you have to show how they changed the outcome of the election. The GOP has suggested you apportion them based on geography, precinct or county.

So you have 30 allegedly improper provisionals in Bothell 1-0254. How do you apportion them?

Note that the absentees went for Gregoire, but the polling place went for Rossi.

Ricard Pope thought the absentees went for Rossi, and the polling place went for Gregoire.

He claimed that the absentees represented the true voter intent, and since the polling place votes varied from that they must have been stuffed for Gregoire.

His reasoning is fallacious, since you will find there is no connection between polling place votes and absentees. But assuming his reasoning was true, in this precinct it would lead to the conclusion that the ballots were really stuffed for Rossi, and thus they should be deducted from Rossi’s vote.

In contrast, Goldy’s reasoning would now lead to a slight decuction from Gregoire’s vote.

This all goes to show this apportionment methodolgy is BOGUS AND SHOULDN’T BE USED.

Richard @ 30: I think you missed the point of my comment. Provisional voters are supposed to sign a special page in the pollbook before they are given a ballot. This is in addition to the envelope they are to sign.

In my comment, I wondered how many provisional voter signatures were in the Bothell Library pollbooks. If the number matches (or is close to) the total number of provisional ballots issued — including the ones that went directly into the Accuvote maching — it is much less sinister-looking than if it doesn’t.

Stefan doesn’t report on this, so we don’t know. That’s as far as I want to take it — we don’t know.

All of the provisional ballots that wound up in the Accuvote came from the sequentially numbered set of ballots distributed by the precinct pollworker(s). Your suggestion that a large number (16) of those ballots were deliberately and illegally stuffed is accusing at least one of those workers of a very serious crime — I would think you would want to know a little more before going that far.

I believe that voter names are matched with the stub numbers of issued ballots (the stubs are removed before the ballots are cast to preserve secrecy). If that is true, it should be fairly easy to figure out approximately when each of the 16 “PBAV” ballots were issued — and from there one should be able to determine which pollworker was manning the table when the ballots were issued. If all 16 were issued within a fairly narrow timeframe by a single worker, that would be suspicious. On the other hand, if they were scattered throughout the day by multiple workers, it would look more like an honest mistake — especially if voters had signed for those 16 ballots.

I’ll take Republican complaints about the election when they extend their ‘fraud’ analysis to counties Rossi won. I’m willing to bet the relatively low-tech counties that Rossi cleaned up in won’t have the 99+% accuracy that King County has.

R. Popes statistical “reasoning” is deeply flawed (so is Goldy’s for that matter, but he knows it–he was being sarcastic).

Goldy assumed that the provisional votes were drawn from the same population as the non-provisional poll votes and that those were drawn from the same population as the absentee votes.

Pope assumes that the provisional votes were drawn from the same population as the non-provisional poll votes but that they were not drawn from the same population as the absentee votes.

Both, of course, are incorrect. There is a selection process that leads to a voter voting with a provisional ballot–who knows how that really works out for a particular polling place. It is as mindless to assume that the provisionals would vote proportional to the non-provisional poll voters (Pope’s assumption) as it is to accept Goldy’s (joking) assumption. Furthermore, as a previous contributer pointed out–these are way-small sample sizes. There is just too much uncertainty to make claims either way.

R Pope @ 30.

Whew, dude! This analysis is so full of factual errors. . . . Are the mushrooms in bloom or something?

“40 of these people actually voted twice – i.e. they were credited with casting either a poll vote or an absentee vote, in addition to their empty provisional ballot envelope.”

Ummmm. . . how do you think they decide who gets the vote when an empty provisional envelope is opened?

“There could be anywhere from a few hundred to over a thousand of these unidentifiable provisional ballot stuffers.”

. . . ‘fraid not. The number of provisional ballots given out is known exactly.

“then the empty completed provisional envelope is not returned, so that no paper trial is left to identify the fraudulent voter.”

What about the signatures they had to provide before they were given a ballot?

As for “dishonest” stuffers, 310 would be 1% and 1240 would be 4% rate of “dishonest” stuffing. So the total stuffing rate for provisional ballots would range anywhere from just over 1% (assuming no “dishonest” stuffing at all) to as much as 5% or more (assuming at least 1240 “dishonest” stuffers).

Whew. . . it’s tough to argue with “logic” like that! :-)

16 out of 25 provisional ballots that are issued end up getting stuffed – this is a stuffing rate of 64%. When the stuffing rate countywide is somewhere between 1% and 5%, having a 64% stuffing rate in a single precinct strongly suggests an organized effort at dishonesty.”

Here is another theory. Notice that most of the poll workers tend to be very friendly elderly women? Maybe, just maybe, there was one poll worker who didn’t understand how to properly handle provisional ballots. He or she gave incorrect instructions to the voter, etc. . . . Just wild-ass speculation, but it seems like a far more parsiminious explanation than “distributed voter fraud”.

“All of this supports the proposition that the Democrats could have driven vanloads of fraudulent voters around to multiple precincts, especially the busy ones, and certainly including a number which were Republican leaning, in order to stuff provisional ballots for their candidates.”

This explans a lot. . . paranoid and delusional. C’mon. . . think back to October. Did anyone think the election would be this close. Nobody was predicting an election outcome within a couple hundred votes. BTW: why would you think the Democrats engaged in the conspiracy? The Republicans were the underdogs–they had more to gain from roving vans of ballot stuffers than the Dems. Both theories are bullshit, of course, in that they lack and credible evidence.

“I thought we used to believe that win or lose, our strenght was our abilty to work together afterwards. Maybe I was wrong.”

It used to be that way but the wingers changed the rules of the game. They will do anything to win, and they will not accept defeat, nor will they accept the will of the people. It’s their way or the highway.

Yep, I was talking about BOT 01-3271. And so was Goldy. The “Ballot Accountability Sheet” for THAT precinct posted by Shark on (u?)SP shows 16 out of 25 provisional ballots that were “stuffed”. Look at the second picture displayed by Shark on this link:

Goldy’s reading of Shark’s analysis was incorrect — or at least it did not reflect the actual numbers for BOT 01-3271. Goldy thought that Shark meant that 30 extra provisional ballots were cast in BOT 01-3271 alone. What Shark actually meant was a total of 30 provisional ballots stuffed in all of the precincts voting at the Bothell Regional Library, not just BOT 01-3271.

If you look at the first picture on the Shark link above, it appears that Shark may have misread the numbers for another precinct at the Bothell Regional Library, namely BOT 01-0254. Shark uses some handwriting on the cover of the “Registered Voter & Signature Book” for that precinct (i.e. poll book) to support his proposition that 31 provisional ballots were stuffed in BOT 01-0254.

However, to get any meaningful numbers about BOT 01-0254, you would have to see the “Ballot Accountability Sheet” for that precinct as well. The numbers on the poll book cover are not self-explanatory. Nor do they seem to support the proposition that 31 provisional ballots were stuffed in that precinct.

Gee, I could use a Guinness :) I have been trying to save money, and have been drinking Rossi instead. Carlo Rossi that is. As for Dino, he drinks only water and not any vino.

Good point. It would be helpful to get a complete copy of the poll book for BOT 01-3271, and see if there are actually 25 signatures on a special page for the 25 provisional ballots issued. This information would be the starting point for further analysis.

Chew2 @ 46

WOW! You have a good point about BOT 01-0254. POLL votes went 97 to 69 for Rossi over Gregoire. ABSENTEE votes went 174 to 97 for Gregoire over Rossi. If you used the inverse of my analysis, that kind of disparity could only be explained if somewhere around 58.33 provisional ballots were stuffed for Rossi.

Proportional analysis depends on a false assumption, i.e. that how A voted depends on how B and C voted. But this cause-and-effect relationship doesn’t exist. A didn’t know how B or C voted, and A may even have voted first. Absent a cause-and-effect relationship, how B and C voted is irrelevant to the question of how A voted. Therefore, analysis that determines how A voted from how B and C voted will produce the same accuracy rate as random guessing, given a large enough sampling to be statistically valid.

Actually, you have the assumptions made by both Goldy and myself wrong.

Goldy assumed that provisional ballot stuffers were drawn from the same population as the legitimate voters of the precinct at large (both absentee and poll voters). This is logically fallacious, since a fraudulent stuffer probably doesn’t live in that precinct at all, and if fraudulent stuffing is organized, then all fraudulenty stuffed votes might favor one candidate and not the other candidate.

I assumed that legitimate poll voters were drawn from the same population as absentee voters. I extrapolated the legitimate poll votes cast for each candidate by multiplying the number of legitimate poll ballots by the proportions that absentee votes went for each candidate. The difference would be the number of stuffed provisional ballots, and would tend to tell who the stuffed ballots were cast for.

While I think my reasoning is based on logic, it certainly has its limitations. For example, in a given precinct, the way that poll voters vote can be radically different than the way absentee voters vote. See my post # 53 above and how BOT 01-0254 voted. It would support 58.33 provisional ballots being stuffed for Rossi — when likely there were hardly any provisional ballots at all stuffed in that precinct.

That is a stupid comment, which reflects your ignorance of history. The Democrats did not walk away in Florida. They filed a lawsuit to contest the Presidential election results in that state. The Democrats lost in the state trial court. They appealed to the Florida Supreme Court and won. The Republicans appealed that decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, which overturned the Florida Supreme Court.

See my letter to the editor on this subject, which the Seattle P-I published in its Sunday edition on January 9, 2005:

You are correct . . . but I was making a serious point about allocating the improperly cast ballots proportionally. I left out the fantasy part about wandering vans of ballot stuffers. . . .

The idea that there were “fraudulent stuffers” is preposterous. Is there any evidence for this whatsoever? It seems more likely that the ballots were simply mishandled, perhaps resulting from improper (or inadequate) instructions from a poll worker.

BTW: if we stoop to fantasy games, my favorite theory is that the “fraudulent stuffers” had no interest in the Governor’s race whatsoever. They were hoards of bible-carrying fundamentalists trying to defeat the gambling initiative. . . . Or maybe they were Nader nut-jobs trying to propel their hero to the oval office–a dozen votes at a time. How do we “proportionally” allocate the “fraudulent stuffer” vote for Governors office then?

k@34. Your reasoning is well said. Differs do not have to create hatefull conflict. Good Debate is not filled with spewing hate. Those who harbor hate, abuse and use debate as an outlet for hate. This differs from coming from reason in good debate. From which one operates, vividly shows up.

The conspiratorial vans of mass deception, organized, driving through the day and into the night delivering hordes of conspirators to their assigned destinations: pollings places distributed throughout King County, WA.

Coordinated by the masters of the levers of power at the very top of the new world order and the MSM.

John@64. You have left a vacumn. To whom’s power may this be contributed? Who is the most powerfull comprised? “The highest planned order of voter “FRAUD” has not been proven. Fraud has never been Rossi’s issue. If it was, Rossi and GOP would spell it our in his filing with the court. They are more in touch with the legal issue called fraud than us lowers. The legal term Fraud should not be used lightly until you know what it takes to constitute such an accusation.

The tools of the conspiracy were described at the end of 31: vans of mass deception, of mass coordination from the highest levers of power in our state cloaked in invisibility through the MSM. Staffed by the foot soldiers of the new world order.

It’s obvious to everyone that Fraudoire is going down. The criminally-minded DemocRAT party thought they could get away with what they could get away with what they couldn’t in 2000, but as with sKerry, REAL Americans stood up and had their voices heard!

@76. AH SO. ..in “plane” sight. Oh..that is a good place for evidance. Now your seeing “planes” that are not their either. My garden beckons. Also its the Sabbath. I won’t be able to tell you what I really think. You see I have no Chinese coins for my swear box and the ones I have saved are for running an I Ching on you.

Once that’s done, we can get this state back on track on serving REAL citizent (sic) rather than a bunch of King Kounty Marxists with their hands out.

I wonder just how many times it will take people like W to understand that us KC residents subsidize people like W (and other “real citizens”). As Sandeep Kaushik wrote in the Stranger this week, that may not jibe with eastern washington’s “self-image of libertarian self-reliance”, but it’s a fact.

Frankly, it’s also a fact at the national level too (as has been pointed out here before). The image of Democrats with “their hands out” is in direct conflict with the fact that the states that receive more Federal dollars than they put in are all Red States. Democrats subsidize the lower and middle-class white Republican voters (that the GOP has a “lock” on).

Frankly, the GOP has done a marvelous job presenting itself as the party of the “average” man, while simultaneously passing laws that do nothing but benefit the rich. It’s almost awe-inspiring.

PS. Same as the dissonance created by the fact that states with the highest divorce rates are Red states (Massechusetts, gay marriage capital of the US, has the lowest divorce rate).

jcricket- Did it ever dawn on you that folks in rural counties may not want to be subsidized by KingCo….and don’t want KingCo controlling their land use and economic environment either!!! Progressives (aka Utopian Marxists) believe in the Frankenstein approach to smart growth which means leaving rural in poverty…beholding to the Marxists.

KingCo is in deep financial do-do caused by being excessive planning, re-planning and re-re-planning to the point where there is no money left to actually do anything of value.

I think the real answer is for KingCo to “go it alone” and become it’s own 51st State. Good riddance!

If Republicans are more likely to cheat than democrats, than why is it that all the famous vote fraud cases are in heavily democrat areas? Like Chicago, the recent problems with fraudulent registrations in democrat-heavy Miwaukee, the garbage in heavily democrat King County? Even the slashed tires on vans that were to take republican voters to the polls and the breakins of republican headquarters show a willingness on the part of democrats to WAYYYY cross the line in elections.

And why is it that democrats don’t want people to prove their elegibility to vote? Why is it republicans who want ID check at the polls and proof of citizenship to register? It only makes sense, but Dems will only allow a wimpy “You must be a citizen to vote”. Great, a dishonest person blows right past that one….

Face facts, bro, it definitely isn’t republicans who are pushing for weak election law….we all know this

“Did it ever dawn on you that folks in rural counties may not want to be subsidized by KingCo….and don’t want KingCo controlling their land use and economic environment either!!!”

Maybe we should take a cue from the federal government’s Indian policy and set up Wingnut Reservations in the middle of nowhere so they can do as they please without hurting anyone. Adams County looks pretty good, not much vegetation or running water there for them to fuck up.

For the same reason the earth is flat, Rossi won the election, and Iraq was behind 9-11 … because no fact gets inside a wingnut’s bubble-universe unless it conforms to his belief system.

Comment by Don— 3/13/05 @ 9:13 pm

Are you saying Republicans believe any of that? You start off with a stupid, irrelevent, tongue in cheek, “Earth is flat” example – Clearly no one believes that. Then you list “Rossi won the election” as another example of the falsehoods us republicans buy off on. Well I think you’ll find that most Republicans say Rossi “may” have won, but that no one, not even you Don, knows who won this election for sure and that is the point. Libs like yourself insist Gregoire won, which is completely impossible to say with any degree of certainty. It is you that won’t concede the real possibility that Rossi actually may have won. And then you go to the drawer and pull out the Iraq was behind 9/11. I don’t know anyone that thinks Iraq was behind 9/11. What is clear is that Saddam, violated 17 UN resolutions, the terms of a cease-fire agreement and supported terror. Whether he had even the slightest tie to 9/11 is irrelevent in my opinion, I would concede he did not, as it matters not in determining the validity of the Iraq war. It’s right for so many other reasons. Involvement in 9/11 would just be added to the list, straight to the top, but just added to the many other valid reasons.

So Don you’ll have to try again. Come back with some REAL examples of the “crazy” facts us stupid Repubilcans believe in. So far your 0 for 3.

Why not list some facts (as you see them)that we DON’T believe in? That should be even more entertaining. How about; The rich get richer on the backs of the poor, the rich are under taxed, this counrty was not founded on Christian principles/values, it’s a constitutional right to abort a baby and for gays to marry, freedom of speech means you can’t judge the content of that speech and can’t take actions not to support those speaking – (unless their conservative), etc.

Hmm, I pointed out to you on another thread that several people in the GOP have already been convicted, with more convictions on the way for vote jamming in Vermont in 2002. And these are no random miscreants, but the former executive director of the state Republican Party in New Hampshire.

Plenty of Republicans not only say Rossi won, but that he won “twice.”

You’re right, I’m not “sure” Gregoire won — I’m not “sure” of anything, in the sense that I’m open to new information — but based on what I’ve seen so far, the faith-based belief of legions of Republicans that Rossi got robbed is grossly unjustified by available facts.

As for how many people think Iraq was behind 9-11 … the poll data have put that number as high as 75% and the last one I saw was still over 50%. I will, however, concede there is at least one person besides myself who doesn’t believe that — you, because you just said so.

But unlike you, I do not share your faith-based belief that involvement in Iraq was “right” (I assume you meant in the sense of being the right decision). Some of the reasons:

1. I believe Bush’s military adventure in Iraq is going to turn out badly for the U.S.

2. Lots of young Americans are losing their lives with no end in sight.

3. We are not in control of either the fighting or when we will be able to leave — the enemy is.

4. The Iraq war sucked troops and resources away from the war we need to be fighting against Al Qaeda.

5. The Iraq war has been grossly mismanaged. Billions of dollars have gone missing. We have bombed and killed innocent civilians. We have tortured people, both guilty and innocent, but mostly innocent. We are pursuing a plainly stupid strategy under which we are fighting on ground of the enemy’s choosing, on his terms, when and where he chooses to fight, and we are allowing him access to unlimited supplies and reinforcements by failing to seal Iraq’s borders.

6. In the process of going to war, we unnecessarily trashed alliances and alienated allies that for decades have been vital to maintaining world peace.

7. The politics of the war have been conducted by the Republican Party and its supporters in a manner that has created unnecessary division and hostility in our own country.

I could probably think of a lot more but the general drift of my thinking is that it’s the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time being fought in the wrong way and after large expenditures of American blood and treasure we’re going to end up with a hostile, theocratic, repressive dictatorship in that country just like Iran.

1. Democrats stuffed ballot boxes. 2. Democrats drove vanloads of illegal voters to polling places. 3. Democrats “found” the votes necessary for Gregoire to win. 4. The failure of the “big binder” to reconcile means there was massive voting fraud. 5. The Democrats encouraged people to vote illegally. 6. Two-thirds of the public wants Rossi to be governor. 7. King County election officials are corrupt and dishonest.

I took a look at the King County Elections reconciliation documents that Shark has posted on Sound Politics. Unfortunately, the discrepancies (which unfortunately aren’t as large as those which initially resulted from the voter crediting process) may have a completely (or at least mostly) non-fraudulent explanation.

You can take a look at these these documents (Master Explanation, Reconciliation Worksheet and Notes) at:

The number of provisional ballots fed directly into the machines with a completed envelope submitted totalled 348 countywide — what I called “honestly” stuffed provisionals.

The total number of known provisional ballots fed directly into the machines apparently totalled 660 — which seems to include this 348. So what I called “dishonestly” stuffed provisionals — i.e. no completed envelope submitted — would have totalled about 312, or 660 minus 348.

However, these “dishonestly” stuffed provisionals may well have a perfectly legitimate explanation as to why no provisional ballot envelope was returned. MANY PRECINCTS RAN OUT OF PROVISIONAL BALLOT ENVELOPES!

These are the notes for the Duvall Church, where eight precincts voted:

Inspector says he ran out of PB envelopes – so ran 26 ballots through accuvote – 4 other ballots have no identifying info other than precinct names. Breakdown for 30 ballots (26 plus 4) given info from provisional ballot pages: 13 voters registered in KC at other polling places (went to wrong poll site), 11 voters were at correct site (possible errors: they were in supplemental pages, voting absentee or clerical error – e.g. wrong book), 5 non-registered, given info available, 1 illegible. Could not determine any clear info for the 4 ballots w/o identifying info from provisional pages, due to number of total provisionals (115 total).

A lot of the 348 provisional ballots that I previously said had been submitted with empty envelopes were actually submitted with no envelopes at all. This includes the 26 ballots at the Duvall church referenced above. Apparently, voters casting provisional ballots also have to put a good bit of information in the poll book and sign it as well, so they identified 26 of the 30 provisional voters who weren’t issued envelopes that way at the Duvall church.

Of course, it remains to be seen whether or not the Republicans will be able to use the King County poll book reconciliation data to support their election contest case. We will see what happens when the case goes to trial.

The only thing the GOP has going for it is they don’t have to prove fraud. Incendiaries like our friend and fellow blogger Chris above hurt their cause by making all Repubs look like black-helicopter wackos.

I started writing a response to you, but decided not to waste the time. I think everyone here has read my comments and opinions and can see they are reality based. It is you that is perceived as “out there”. I won’t be needing to borrow you foil hat anytime soon.

Come on. Everybody knows that there is nothing whatsoever behind Rossi’s allegations. It’s just smoke and mirrors. What’s a few hundred provisional ballots fed directly into the Accuvote? More efficient vote processing, that’s what it is. Over 50,000 “enhanced ballots” – insubstantial. New ballots found nine different times by King County? That’s just an obscene rumor spread by the Rossi Camp. Hundreds of felons voting? They all voted for Rossi anyway. Both Reed and Logan admitting they didn’t know for sure who won? Nah, they couldn’t have said that. Republicans just need to get a grip and live with the current Governor until 2008, or beyond.

‘Republicans are more likely to cheat that Democrats?’ Huh, that’s funny, the last election results on the third try condridict that one. How you people can sit here and say something like that is beyond me. One word: Hypocrits! You are NOT holier than thou. Thanks to the good ole B.I.A. for printing bumper stickers with the real truth; alas: “SHE’S not MY Governor!!” Thanks.

Please Donate

I appreciate feeling appreciated. Also, money.

Currency:

Amount:

Can’t Bring Yourself to Type the Word “Ass”?

Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!

Search HA

Follow Goldy

HA Commenting Policy

It may be hard to believe from the vile nature of the threads, but yes, we have a commenting policy. Comments containing libel, copyright violations, spam, blatant sock puppetry, and deliberate off-topic trolling are all strictly prohibited, and may be deleted on an entirely arbitrary, sporadic, and selective basis. And repeat offenders may be banned! This is my blog. Life isn’t fair.